It was the last debate before next week’s primaries. Our experts weigh in on who won and who lost.
HUNTER BAKER The No. 1 takeaway from the debate in Arizona is that Rick Santorum was the loser. He came into the event riding a tremendous wave of late deciders. Instead of being prepared for obvious attacks on his record (especially with regard to earmarks), he made the terrible mistake of trying to explain a complex issue with natural-soundbite negatives to an audience who did not want to hear it. He almost dragged the whole group down, as both Gingrich and Paul attempted to clarify the matter. Romney wisely stayed the course in the role of an indignant foe of the practice. Santorum also sounded like the kind of conservative who wants to deal with government programs he doesn’t like by enacting other government programs. It didn’t play well. He will lose support. The only question is how many people were watching and how far the message will spread.
Newt Gingrich won the debate, hands down. These contests are like air to him. For his purposes, there have been far too few of late. He is the kind of professor who will always be popular with students because he is clear, concise, and great at tracing out an argument. The audience were his students. He delivered the material beautifully. Everything depends on whether GOP voters have finally settled in the belief that he is too damaged for serious consideration. If he rebounds while Santorum falls, it’s happy days for Romney again.
Advertisement
Ron Paul was also a winner. As usual, his consistent message resonated with GOP voters (except on foreign policy) because it is such a natural fit with their organic opposition to statism.
Mitt Romney didn’t win on points, but he won in terms of the net (“net-net”?) result. Santorum fell so badly into the trap of looking like a moderate playing conservative that he made the audience forget that they’ve assumed the same thing about the former governor of Massachusetts. Romney wasn’t nearly as exciting as Newt, but he did throw Santorum off his game. And that was just what he needed.
— Hunter Baker is the author of The End of Secularism and an associate professor of political science at Union University.
MONA CHAREN This is the most unpredictable political year in living memory. Every pundit should pound his chest and repeat, “I know nothing. I know nothing.”
That much having been acknowledged, I think Newt had a pretty good night, though there were stretches when you forgot he was there. He donned the philosopher’s hat, and seemed less like the guy who would say absolutely anything to gain advantage.
Santorum was the big loser. The tag team of Ron Paul (serving as Romney’s attack dog in debates), who went after him on hypocrisy, and Romney, who was prepared with zingers of his own, left Santorum on defense most of the night. And his excessive self-regard came through in his choice of a one-word description: “courage.” Ouch. He came close to Kerryism — “I was for it before I was against it” — which is always a problem for senatorial types.
With the exception of his fixed, tight-lipped smile while others were speaking, I thought Romney was excellent. He scored major points on the Detroit bailouts, and kicked the teachers’ unions for good measure. His answer on Iran was first-rate. In all the euphoria about Newt’s debating skills a month ago, people forgot that Romney is actually a very good debater. He can easily best Obama in debate. Let’s hope he gets the chance.
— Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist.
Most of the pundits are saying Santorum looked bad. I disagree. I think what regular voters, especially GOP voters, will take away from this debate is that he looked presidential and ready to handle tough issues with honesty and conviction. The media has been trying to paint him as an extremist, but this debate made him look quite reasonable. Looking like a moderate when the media paints you as a right-wing crazy means you end up conservative, which is exactly who he is and exactly where he needs to be in a Republican primary.
Santorum may not win Arizona, but I think the morning after impression of him in the heads of the silent majority is doing the same thing it did after the debates in states like South Carolina and Florida that he also did not win: trending up.
You're right: this debate didn't make Santorum look like an extremist. It made him look like a typical Washington insider, with a convoluted or just plain unbelievable (at least for someone who uses "courage" to describe himself) excuse for all his mistakes.
Voted for No Child Left Behind? Had to be a team player with the new president. Anyway, he opposes it now, so that's OK, right?
Endorsed Arlen Specter? Had to reelect Specter so he would vote for Bush's judicial nominees and give cover to moderate Republicans and Democrats to vote for same.
Voted for Title X funding? Had to vote for it as part of a bigger bill, but it's OK -- he also voted for increased funding for Title XX.
Voted for this or that piece of unconservative legislation? Blame it on having to represent a blue state with lots of unions and senior citizens.
Said he'll talk about the dangerous of contraception as president? Was only talking about teenagers and children born out of wedlock.
Wrong. Rick Santorum is the best choice. Paul, Romney and Newt are the Washington insiders. Romney gave us Romney care the blueprint for ObamaCare. He is a lib. Newt fed at the Fannie and Freddie trough, supported Dede Scazzofava, global warming with Pelosi and amnesty.
As far as Soecter - Bush and Rove supported Specter. Pat Twoomey has turned out to be just another RINO like Specter. Rick Santorum is the best choice and he can and will beat Obama. Newt's negatives are too high, Romney is a liberal who created RomneyCare which became ObamaCare and Ron Paul is too snarky petty. The three of them would lose in November.
Hey Cal. If you haven't heard the news, the majority of Americans and particularly those in the military, don't want another war. Iran getting a nuclear bomb is no more a threat to the U.S. than Pakistan or North Korea or Isreal for that matter, having one. You went into Iraq and stayed for ten years on the idea that they had WMD. Ooops! Now after all those years and thousands of lives lost, you get out. Accomplishing what exactly?
The fact is, American foreign policy since the end of WWII has been a complete disaster. Yet, you continue to spout the Neo Con dogma of perpetual war to feed the machine.
Sorry, we're not buying it anymore.
No war in Iran!!!
If you are going to continue to spout Democrat talking points based on their legislation:
External Link (The bill where you, and Democrats got their talking points. Too bad they didn't have the guts to actually pass it.).
External Link (And more of the same gutless, spineless political posturing.)
...one can only come to the conclusion that you are another hideously misinformed Paul supporter, or you're a radical Democrat who doesn't want to acknowledge what part your party played in the Iraq debacle.
I just read the first link. It is ALL ABOUT WMD. You must be the only person in America who does not remember Condi saying we dont want a mushroom cloud to be our evidence/.
Based on your own first external lonk which you seem to not have read I assume the rest has equivalent quality?
NRO has the "audacity" to label their panel as "experts?" Says whom? They have one vote each as does everyone else, but somehow their opinions rate them as experts? They are "spin city" central. Nothing more--nothing less. The media is once again predictably attempting to prop up Romney. He's bland, phony, rehearsed, unconvincing, and desperate. Gingrich was and is the "smartest guy in the room." Just because the deck was stacked to play up the Santorum/Romney food fight--means "jack." It is what it is! Biggest losers--the American voter and CNN. Winner--Gingrich!
"Oh noes! The NRO peoples didn't get all wiggly in the knees over the guy I really like! They must all be really stupid, 'cuz smart guys would all agree with ME!"
It's correct to say that Santorum did not have a good night. However, I don't think any one of his responses were as disastrous at Mitt's flanneling over his tax return, or Perry's brain-freeze over what federal agency he wanted to close. There was no one line that it would be easy to pick out and use in an attack ad against Santorum.
The again, I'm biased - I like the guy, whereas Romney leaves me pretty cold.
I did not listen to the debate last night. I was weary of the in-fighting; weary of the foot-in-mouth disease and the stabbing articulate jabs of opponents besides my husband and I had taped the PBS Clinton faery tale.
Aside: The PBS Clinton program was an old-fashioned knight-in-shining armor faery tale. That two-part program cast Clinton's perjury as s "pure" issue of sex; a private dalliance instead of the perjury of the high crimes and misdemeanor variety. We all are aware that the media is a liberal bastion that is precisely why Republicans and Conservatives should keep this in mind when campaigning: give no fodder for the mill.
The Republicans should learn a lesson from long, long, long campaigns: their eventual candidate may be fine-tuned and fully exorcised by the process of long campaigning but he will be wounded perhaps beyond saving.
What if Romney wins? What if Gingrich wins? What if Santorum wins? (Notice I did not mention Paul.) Will the one standing be sufficiently in tact to take on Obama and the Democrats' record? Will that Republican nominee have sufficient ammunition to defend his record and the record of the Republicans? Will the Republican nominee present a thoughtful, articulate, and down-to-earth, modest program that will take us from the edge of the cliff and return us home safely or are we to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune yet again?
God bless and keep America. God grant we keep our Constitution and our way of life.
Did you ever see HBO's character assassination of Ronald Reagan? I don't know the title but I could only stomach 20 minutes of it. It was incredibly disrespectful and this coming from an American company and possibly made by an American citizen. I expected the following show to be a glorious documentary about Chairman Mao.
“We all are aware that the media is a liberal bastion.” I do not comprehend why so many Americans label as “liberal” the moneymaking mainstream media in this country. (1) The deliberate bias / misinformation disseminated by newspapers like NYT and cable news such as CNN, makes former Soviet papers and news agencies (e.g. Agency TASS, Yzvestia, Pravda) look objective by comparison. (2) MSNBC, NBC, etc. are purveyors of propaganda that is far more sophisticated in nature than the former Soviet newspapers. (3) The shocking part is that despite the freedom of information in this country, too many Americans are misinformed or uninformed, and receptive to dogma. (4) How can a people that were at war (Cold War) with Communist regimes, embrace now ideas that obviously failed in the Soviet Bloc (and Vietnam, and North Korea, and Cuba, and various countries in Africa)?
I disagree with Baker's analysis of Gingrich. With Gingrich you never know which personality you'll get. Last night we got "thoughtful Newt" who, to a large degree, was able to keep his vitriol in check. That Newt, however, comes across as a cerebral commentator rather than a participant. I don't think his performance will succeed in rescuing him from irrelevancy.
I do agree with Charen and Gallagher that Santorum was the clear loser of the evening. He had the most to prove after being catapulted into front-runner status and arguably had the greatest momentum going into the debate but was unable to rise to the occasion. One needed a PhD in nuclear physics to follow his circuitous explanations for backing Specter or voting for No child Left Behind. It was reminiscent of John "I voted for it before I voted against it" Kerry.
Romney had a solid performance and came across as very presidential. He made strong statements regarding the UAW and Iran. Tactically, he was effective at lobbing ordnance at Santorum's fiscally irresponsible legislative record while simultaneously parrying attacks on Romneycare.
Ron Paul was another winner. It is hard to argue against his unwavering defense of liberty and unintrusive government. If only his foreign policy views weren't so dangerous...
In sum, the debate was somewhat underwhelming. All four, rather than taking a 30,000 foot view and explaining their vision for the country, spent too much time immersed in the weeds of earmarks and voting records - a squandered opportunity.
"If only his foreign policy views weren't so dangerous..."
I hear this line over and over. We need to face facts, though: our current foreign policy *is* dangerous, not only to the lives of our soldiers but to our economy. What's more dangerous, leaving Iran alone and letting another first-world country (Israel) deal with them, or going into an unprovoked war with yet another third-world country?
But, just for argument's sake, the position you take here is akin to the America First isolationist policy we adhered to before being forced to enter WWII. We stuck our heads in the sand about Japan (and Germany). This caught us with our pants down when the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor, and in order to respond we had to build a military from scratch. The difference here is that nukes are in the wrong hands, the terrorists who wind up with them won't do us the courtesy of targeting them at a military installation. They'll launch it against our civilian population. In this way, like so much of libertarian political philosophy, while Paul's foreign policy stance looks good from a theoretical perspective, it has little bearing on realpolitik. There is a big difference between our government not falling into the trap of playing the world's police force and fulfilling its primary duty of protecting America in a very complex global age. Paul fails to understand that distinction.
The problem is that for us to *guarantee* a world where no one who hates us could possibly get a nuke is to guarantee a world where we spend ourselves into complete oblivion.
So, for argument's sake, is there a point where we get diminishing returns for our money (and lives?) Is there a point where we are making our country less safe by policing the world? If you accept that there is a point, then we are simply arguing over the details as to where that point is.
I believe we have crossed it, and our military is endangering our defense rather than strengthening it. I'm not saying Iran is a cuddly bear and we just need to be friends, I'm saying they are less of a danger to us than our government is.
Santorum looked very unsure and wavering on what he believes and stands for. That took one for the team was the nadir of his pathetic performance.
Paul had a wonderful one liner to Santorum's clueless answer and had the audience applauding.
Newt had that brilliant attack mode of taking on controversial questions with biting incisive questions of his own. I feel bad for the moderator as he/she rarely are prepared to deal with this response.
Romney looks gave his usual steady debate performance. This is his milieu. He looks so much better in debates than in one on one interviews where he gets very defensive and in connecting with groups of people where he seems so artificial.
